34 ms·
> 2. To provide a way for people with better information than the general public to choose the President [0]. Heheh, so the people chose Clinton, but the "peop
by cyphax 10y ago
> 2. To provide a way for people with better information than the general public to choose the President [0].
Heheh, so the people chose Clinton, but the "people with better information" chose Trump? That just doesn't sound right. ;)
- rounce 10y agoWut? Did you even read the parent post?
- grzm 10y agoPlease don't insinuate that someone hasn't read an article. "Did you even read the article? It mentions that" can be shortened to "The article mentions that." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html Add some useful information, or move on (possibly down voting if you can and are so inclined).
- rounce 10y agoI actually wrote a whole long post lamenting the users failure to read the post they were replying to. However, it seemed ridiculous, given that they couldn't even correctly contextualise the part of the post they were quoting. So I put in terms that couldn't easily be misconstrued. Then let them either see their error, or point it in a subsequent post if they really struggle. Also, I didn't ask if they had read the article, I asked if they had read the very post they were quoting (to quote kinda implies that you read and understood). The article posted by the OP is irrelevant by this stage in this micro-discussion. If you had read the parent comments, you obviously wouldn't be playing HN rent-a-cop for nothing. Likewise you'll also realize that the guideline simply refers to OP articles, and doesn't try and tell people how to conduct a reasonable conversation when one of the participants just decides to put words in the mouth of another. Bloody busybody.